Page 48 of 56 FirstFirst ... 2338394041424344454647484950515253545556 LastLast
Results 941 to 960 of 1107

Thread: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

  1. #941

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    I think it's important to distinguish between what's actually Romance inventions and what's just poor period authenticity in general. Some of this stuff wouldn't be correct in any source, i.e. the Romance did not make the Shu region magically teleport from the west to the east. Personally, I find the female general rate to be a similar kind of issue. The Romance might've emphasized fighting women a bit more than the histories, but it wasn't to such a huge degree.

    Now, I don't really expect anyone to go over representations of the setting with a fine toothed comb to find everything that's probably historical and everything that is probably fictional. CA are game developers from whom I am buying games, not a PhD student who's thesis I'm trying to rip apart. However, there are parts of this that just indicate having the wrong priorities, like making Liu Bei always lead the kingdom of Shu-Han because of name recognition, rather than using it to teach people why things were named the way they were (which isn't a hard concept to grasp imo).

    Mechanically, I agree with Daruwind and PointofViewGun. It's been my position for a while that there just are not any features that would fit in Records mode that wouldn't also fit into Romance mode, so searching for some kind of feature to hoard into the Records side to prove that it's an "equal" to Romance mode is asking the wrong questions. Duels and super-generals are more changes than additions in my opinion. They don't really add that much interesting gameplay or strategic option and seem to just be there to try and broaden the net to those who are used to playing games like RoTK and Dynasty Warriors. They represent wasted developer effort for people like me, who will likely play Romance mode once and never again, but if it helps the game sell better (and therefore be supported better), I can't say its a waste overall and I know more than a few people looking forward to Romance mode.

    It's mostly in the aesthetic and flavor stuff that a lot of the problem currently lays.

    CA's last AMA said that events in the two modes would be differentiated by giving the Romance the "definitively-fictional" and "supernatural" events, while if the Diaochan situation is any indication, Records will just some slight tweaks the emphasize the non-fiction aspects in its place. "Supernatural" is fairly easily explained, but what constitutes "definitively-fictional" is one of those up-to-interpretation things that's going to create a lot of strife. Since CA evidently think that the Zhao Yun Beizhuan should be used for anything other than a child's bedtime story means that our definitions clearly diverge, but it's the opinion of their historical adviser and more than a few other 3K history fans that I've met. I'm hardly an authoritative source, and a some of those who have better claim to that distinction than I are more willing to accept that the ideas and traditions that the Romance brings have basis in fact, just poorly attested or no longer traceable.

    I think that's what CA's approach has been, to start with the popular Romance portrayals and work backwards from there, weeding out things they think are too fictional, but hanging onto their favorite aspects. Then, when they arrive at the Records, they fill the gaps that they need to from the histories. The Ma Teng persona they've crafted is somewhat emblematic of this. Yeah, they kept around his "Han loyalist" personality trait and left out his defection during the Liang rebellion in the flavor text, but otherwise, they made him the Dong Zhuo ally that he was historically and stuffed a lot of his other personality flaws in. It really feels like they were determined to find some way to keep that "Han Loyalist" shtick around in a sort of "well, you can't prove it's impossible" way which happens a lot with people's explanation of motivations in this era (see also, everything Liu Bei and Sima Yi ever did). Other things, like making Huang Zhong into Liu Biao's friend rather than just his subordinate and letting Taishi Ci serve Kong Rong permanently are historical interpretation, but aren't necessarily at odds with the Records, considering this is a sandbox.

    It extends to the unit design as well. You've got really nice and authentic looking halberdiers and crossbowmen alongside weird Warring States throwbacks in the Jian Swordguard and the oft-memed Pearl Dragons, who were last spotted walking into battle with incredibly rare glaives and nothing else. No, I can't say that something along those lines couldn't exist in this era, and interpretation is necessary when there are so many gaps in the historical accounts, but some things (like having an elite unit walking around in pajamas) are just too nonsensical for me to accept as a standard part of the game. However, from my conversation with other people on both sides of the Pacific, tolerance for that kind of stuff varies wildly. I've got people telling me "whatever, its fine" to most of the unit roster and people telling me that anyone who isn't dressed in standard Later Han regulation armor is an insult to history.

    Ultimately, most of this matters little to gameplay (except the trebuchets, screw those), won't affect my opinion of the game too much, and can be easily modded. However, I think the game would have looked a lot better if it had been consistent with its sourcing. I also think that the history is way cooler than the Romance, but that's kind of a minority opinion among the 3K fan community.
    My Three Kingdoms Military History Blog / Military Map Project - https://zirroxas.tumblr.com/
    Ask me a question!

  2. #942
    LestaT's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Campus Martius
    Posts
    3,861

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    I think the difference is that WH is obviously a fantasy title based on a fantasy world with fantastic units, combat and environments based on its own fantasy universe. So of course it would be received and judged as such. 3K, on the other hand, has been touted by CA, since the very beginning, to be the next historical title in the Total War series. So it is being judged as an historical title, per CA’s own marketing of the title. The fictional “Romance” and the actual history of the 3K era are two very different things, and simply adjusting bodyguard units and fatigue is not at all sufficient to differentiate between the two.
    It's not that much different. Romance of the 3 kingdom is still a historical record writyen for different era audience. The basis of the story is still the same.

    It's not something like le morte de arthur is written which may be base on actual history. Romance however is very much based on history. If Records does not exist or if Chinese dont have the habit of recording stuff, Romance may be taken as basis of historical records of the era and not just mere entertainment.

  3. #943
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,204

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Sigh... It's not semantics at all.
    Sigh... It is.

    Quote Originally Posted by LestaT View Post
    It's not that much different. Romance of the 3 kingdom is still a historical record writyen for different era audience. The basis of the story is still the same.

    It's not something like le morte de arthur is written which may be base on actual history. Romance however is very much based on history. If Records does not exist or if Chinese dont have the habit of recording stuff, Romance may be taken as basis of historical records of the era and not just mere entertainment.
    I disagree. That’s like saying Braveheart the movie isn’t much different than any historical records of the period. “Based on” is a slippery slope, as nothing other than the framework needs to actually be realistic or true. Besides, as I said, a significant portion (30-50%) of the Romance is fictional - made up by LGZ and patently untrue. Suggesting the Romance is based on history, so it passes as history, is disingenuous. Similarly, claiming a Total War title is historical when it is based on the Romance, is similarly disingenuous.
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  4. #944

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    I disagree. That’s like saying Braveheart the movie isn’t much different than any historical records of the period. “Based on” is a slippery slope, as nothing other than the framework needs to actually be realistic or true. Besides, as I said, a significant portion (30-50%) of the Romance is fictional - made up by LGZ and patently untrue. Suggesting the Romance is based on history, so it passes as history, is disingenuous. Similarly, claiming a Total War title is historical when it is based on the Romance, is similarly disingenuous.
    Total War titles have always been "based on" history, with plenty of what-ifs to drive the sandbox and stylized pop-history to market as a video game. I don't think it's necessarily bad to mix elements of the Romance into the historical mode where they could make sense and still market it as a historical title. Your mod does this just fine.

    I just think certain pieces shown so far are breaking my suspension of disbelief.
    My Three Kingdoms Military History Blog / Military Map Project - https://zirroxas.tumblr.com/
    Ask me a question!

  5. #945
    LestaT's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Campus Martius
    Posts
    3,861

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    Sigh... It is.


    I disagree. That’s like saying Braveheart the movie isn’t much different than any historical records of the period. “Based on” is a slippery slope, as nothing other than the framework needs to actually be realistic or true. Besides, as I said, a significant portion (30-50%) of the Romance is fictional - made up by LGZ and patently untrue. Suggesting the Romance is based on history, so it passes as history, is disingenuous. Similarly, claiming a Total War title is historical when it is based on the Romance, is similarly disingenuous.
    I believe the accepted ratio in 70 history and 30 fiction if not mistaken.

    Anyway, regardless of records or romance mode, does the starting point resembles the actual known history?

    I'm not sure if it's not based of records then what is? Romance is not something created out of thin air.

  6. #946
    Anna_Gein's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    3,617

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    Total War titles have always been "based on" history, with plenty of what-ifs to drive the sandbox and stylized pop-history to market as a video game. I don't think it's necessarily bad to mix elements of the Romance into the historical mode where they could make sense and still market it as a historical title. Your mod does this just fine.

    I just think certain pieces shown so far are breaking my suspension of disbelief.
    What if like New Kingdom Egyptians popping up between Romans and Seleucids ?

    There are always been some ridiculous things in TW. Sometimes I wonder if CA "historical advisors" exist at all. I never seen any mentioned in their game credits. In general when CA starts to talk about authenticity or worse, interpretation/possibility, it is not good at all.
    Last edited by Anna_Gein; March 03, 2019 at 07:43 PM.

  7. #947
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    I disagree. That’s like saying Braveheart the movie isn’t much different than any historical records of the period. “Based on” is a slippery slope, as nothing other than the framework needs to actually be realistic or true. Besides, as I said, a significant portion (30-50%) of the Romance is fictional - made up by LGZ and patently untrue. Suggesting the Romance is based on history, so it passes as history, is disingenuous. Similarly, claiming a Total War title is historical when it is based on the Romance, is similarly disingenuous.
    A small tidbit at the beginning of Braveheart is a declaration that this is a story being told about the past. It never claims to be a historical film.

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    Total War titles have always been "based on" history, with plenty of what-ifs to drive the sandbox and stylized pop-history to market as a video game. I don't think it's necessarily bad to mix elements of the Romance into the historical mode where they could make sense and still market it as a historical title. Your mod does this just fine.

    I just think certain pieces shown so far are breaking my suspension of disbelief.
    CA has always made historical generalizations. It is usually inaccurate in the details. Mods have always made the details more authentic. technically, the game only needs to be authentic at the beginning. Once it starts only the environment is authentic and the story being written is driven by your own actions. Of course, I write this knowing full well that at the start of ETW (1700) New Orleans exists (est. 1718).
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  8. #948
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,204

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    Total War titles have always been "based on" history, with plenty of what-ifs to drive the sandbox and stylized pop-history to market as a video game. I don't think it's necessarily bad to mix elements of the Romance into the historical mode where they could make sense and still market it as a historical title. Your mod does this just fine.

    I just think certain pieces shown so far are breaking my suspension of disbelief.
    And those areas that such stylized pop-history take hold are often the areas receiving the most complaints. Think of the Egyptians in Rome (like Anna_Gein said). Otherwise, I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by LestaT View Post
    I believe the accepted ratio in 70 history and 30 fiction if not mistaken.

    Anyway, regardless of records or romance mode, does the starting point resembles the actual known history?
    The starting point of TW:TK? Some parts yes, a lot of other parts no. Zheng Jiang is the most glaring example, but there are many others I’ve mentioned in this thread and others.

    I'm not sure if it's not based of records then what is? Romance is not something created out of thin air.
    I never said the Romance wasn’t based on the actual history. I’m saying the two are distinctly different. “Based on,” as a term for a game or movie or whatever, doesn’t mean it has to be true at all outside of a general framework. A game about a civil war in Britain, but set in the year 3000 with all the characters being alien-giraffe hybrids, could be said to be “based on” the War of the Roses.
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  9. #949

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Anna_Gein View Post
    What if like New Kingdom Egyptians popping up between Romans and Seleucids ?

    There are always been some ridiculous things in TW. Sometimes I wonder if CA "historical advisors" exist at all. I never seen any mentioned in their game credits. In general when CA starts to talk about authenticity or worse, interpretation/possibility, it is not good at all.
    Historical advisers are advisers, not developers. It doesn't matter if you're writing a book, filming a movie, or making a game, they're only as important as you make them. They're not part of the studio, or even on contract, usually. I don't think I've seen them ever credited at all, even in situations I know they were consulted. They had an interview with the historical adviser from Thrones a while back, but it wasn't hugely illuminating about his role in the process. At the end of the day, they only answer what you ask them and even then, a developer isn't required to listen to or follow their advice.

    Professor Rafe de Crespigny is mostly retired, but he's still active in his field (and responds to email!), but from what I've read of his works, he's fairly open to hypotheticals, so he'd probably tell CA yes to a lot of things if they just asked "could this happen?" which is essentially how Zheng Jiang became a thing. He's also not hugely into a lot of the military details like weapons and armor.

    Quote Originally Posted by LestaT View Post
    I believe the accepted ratio in 70 history and 30 fiction if not mistaken.

    Anyway, regardless of records or romance mode, does the starting point resembles the actual known history?

    I'm not sure if it's not based of records then what is? Romance is not something created out of thin air.
    I go into a bit in this post, though it's only about start positions for the playable factions. In general, I'd say the idea is sound for a lot of them, but the details are off.
    Last edited by zoner16; March 03, 2019 at 08:28 PM.
    My Three Kingdoms Military History Blog / Military Map Project - https://zirroxas.tumblr.com/
    Ask me a question!

  10. #950
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    Historical advisers are advisers, not developers. It doesn't matter if you're writing a book, filming a movie, or making a game, they're only as important as you make them. They're not part of the studio, or even on contract, usually. I don't think I've seen them ever credited at all, even in situations I know they were consulted. They had an interview with the historical adviser from Thrones a while back, but it wasn't hugely illuminating about his role in the process. At the end of the day, they only answer what you ask them and even then, a developer isn't required to listen to or follow their advice.

    Professor Rafe de Crespigny is mostly retired, but he's still active in his field (and responds to email!), but from what I've read of his works, he's fairly open to hypotheticals, so he'd probably tell CA yes to a lot of things if they just asked "could this happen?" which is essentially how Zheng Jiang became a thing. He's also not hugely into a lot of the military details like weapons and armor.
    This is true. If you listen to the developers they state on several occasions that they do the research. They consult with experts, but it isn't contractual. As I mentioned in my previous post, they create historical environments in which they often stick to generalizations. The alternative history is designed to add more to the flavor of the game.

    A director once remark, if I make a show that is 100% historically accurate I will get a few thousand viewers, but if I add some fiction tot he story I gain millions of viewers. people who demand historical accuracy are the minority. Our complaints here are purely academic. If we want immersion, then modding is our only recourse.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  11. #951

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Very disappointing you can't move your unit cards around in battle. How am I supposed to line up my units in the proper position then?


    ​Scoodlypooper Numero Uno

  12. #952
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,204

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    This is true. If you listen to the developers they state on several occasions that they do the research. They consult with experts, but it isn't contractual. As I mentioned in my previous post, they create historical environments in which they often stick to generalizations. The alternative history is designed to add more to the flavor of the game.

    A director once remark, if I make a show that is 100% historically accurate I will get a few thousand viewers, but if I add some fiction tot he story I gain millions of viewers. people who demand historical accuracy are the minority. Our complaints here are purely academic. If we want immersion, then modding is our only recourse.
    I agree and disagree with this. I would argue that alternatives are not a necessity for flavor to a game. Specifically, the Three Kingdoms era is potent, deep, and rich with flavor when only considering the actual history. Honestly, no alternatives or fiction or “what if’s” or fantasy was at all needed to make this game have great depth and immersion. I get what you are saying, but it simply was not needed for this specific title.

    I also don’t believe anyone is asking for 100% historical accuracy; besides, I doubt such could ever be achieved anyway. I believe people are calling out, and upset with, very specific features and gameplay aspects (or lack thereof) relating to what I talk about in my first paragraph. That is in addition to CA engineering a lack of depth/immersion/flavor by dumbing-down certain aspects of the game directly relating to (or contradicting) the era’s history.

    And finally, modding is not what it used to be and we haven’t the tools, abilities or support from CA to properly or effectively mod newer titles. Essentially what we can mod is superficial and we have no idea what/how TK can be modded.
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  13. #953

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    I agree and disagree with this. I would argue that alternatives are not a necessity for flavor to a game. Specifically, the Three Kingdoms era is potent, deep, and rich with flavor when only considering the actual history. Honestly, no alternatives or fiction or “what if’s” or fantasy was at all needed to make this game have great depth and immersion. I get what you are saying, but it simply was not needed for this specific title.
    I'm not quite sure I follow. Are you saying that you think the campaign should have been on rails and that the alt-history nature of the sandbox itself is a problem?

    And finally, modding is not what it used to be and we haven’t the tools, abilities or support from CA to properly or effectively mod newer titles. Essentially what we can mod is superficial and we have no idea what/how TK can be modded.
    I think that's a bit extreme. No, we're not Medieval 2 levels of being able to mod everything, but what the modders of Rome 2, Attila, and even Thrones have been accomplishing of late has been more than superficial. It's harder, certainly, as the software is far more convoluted and opaque, but it's still possible to greatly improve the game through modding, even if they don't expand on the modability at all from what we've had in recent titles.

    Then again, we still don't know what they're doing on that front other than a promise to talk about it "later." They could lose their minds and just lock the game down.
    My Three Kingdoms Military History Blog / Military Map Project - https://zirroxas.tumblr.com/
    Ask me a question!

  14. #954
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,204

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    I'm not quite sure I follow. Are you saying that you think the campaign should have been on rails and that the alt-history nature of the sandbox itself is a problem?
    Nope, not saying that the game should have been on rails (CA having Liu Bei always be "Shu-Han" regardless of geographic location is setting the game on rails), although I can definitely say that the "alt-history" was blown out of proportion by CA. I think the main issues are the "starting point" of the game and the immersion set forth by CA during the course of the campaign itself. With the former, I don't mean starting positions or the year or anything trivial like that - I more so mean the accuracy of the world, era and politics in which the game is representing. Zheng Jiang, as just one example, is a huge, glaring blight on that; other issues have been pointed out in this and other threads. In regard to immersion during the campaign, it appears very much to be the result of apathy or laziness or both - little more than pretty scenery and a basic, trivial understanding and representation of the era. With all the time and money and resources (and expertise of Dr. de Crispigny) at CA's disposal, it is rather disappointing. I'm sure you can agree on that. While some have said they are minor details (and I agree), like character relations and state titles and strategic options for sieges, but it is the attention to minor details that really keeps a player immersed into the world in which they are delving into and makes the game more than a rehashed reskin of previous titles.

    I think that's a bit extreme. No, we're not Medieval 2 levels of being able to mod everything, but what the modders of Rome 2, Attila, and even Thrones have been accomplishing of late has been more than superficial. It's harder, certainly, as the software is far more convoluted and opaque, but it's still possible to greatly improve the game through modding, even if they don't expand on the modability at all from what we've had in recent titles.

    Then again, we still don't know what they're doing on that front other than a promise to talk about it "later." They could lose their minds and just lock the game down.
    A bit extreme perhaps, but not far off the mark either. There is a reason why the vast majority of recent title mods are simple reskins, new units, and stat changes (which are superficial) - Modders don't even have the ability or tools to change the campaign map in recent titles. Modders work with what they have and they make the best of what they are able. While there are plenty of great mod and talented modders for recent titles, the changes they can make are only skin-deep. So the old saying "Mods will fix it" isn't even remotely as true as it used to be. We can only fix what we're allowed, which in context is superficial compared to the title as a whole.
    Last edited by Seether; March 05, 2019 at 08:59 PM.
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  15. #955

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    Nope, not saying that the game should have been on rails (CA having Liu Bei always be "Shu-Han" regardless of geographic location is setting the game on rails), although I can definitely say that the "alt-history" was blown out of proportion by CA. I think the main issues are the "starting point" of the game and the immersion set forth by CA during the course of the campaign itself. With the former, I don't mean starting positions or the year or anything trivial like that - I more so mean the accuracy of the world, era and politics in which the game is representing. Zheng Jiang, as just one example, is a huge, glaring blight on that; other issues have been pointed out in this and other threads. In regard to immersion during the campaign, it appears very much to be the result of apathy or laziness or both - little more than pretty scenery and a basic, trivial understanding and representation of the era. With all the time and money and resources (and expertise of Dr. de Crispigny) at CA's disposal, it is rather disappointing. I'm sure you can agree on that. While some have said they are minor details (and I agree), like character relations and state titles and strategic options for sieges, but it is the attention to minor details that really keeps a player immersed into the world in which they are delving into and makes the game more than a rehashed reskin of previous titles.
    I get that.

    For me, I've never been expecting a game that's historically accurate to the degree that I'd make it. CA's priorities aren't the same as mine, since their goal is to sell as many copies as possible to an audience who will mostly only have knowledge of the setting through the Romance if they have any at all. Then there's the fact that CA aren't historians and are definitely novices in regards to this era (purple dragon Zilong anyone?). While there are plenty of things that I think could have been done better and some things that I think are outright mistakes, none of them feel like apathy or laziness, but just a combination of misaligned priorities and gaps in knowledge. There are certainly areas which disappoint me more than others (the anemic bureaucracy system is my chief gripe), but in general I wouldn't say that I feel that the period is fundamentally misrepresented on the whole, just certain aspects of it.

    And it's not like there aren't proper minor details. There are areas where they are clearly trying, and several of them have made me happy as well. I suppose that makes the areas where they failed all the more annoying for what they could have been, but again, none of this is new territory for the series. The details being off hasn't prevented these titles from not being fun, engaging, or even immersive in the past, so long as the gameplay draws the player in properly, and the livestream gameplay has been looking more promising as time goes on. If people's fun with the game translates into them caring more about the history, I can deal with the misunderstandings in post, and so long as I'm having fun, I can't be too upset.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    A bit extreme perhaps, but not far off the mark either. There is a reason why the vast majority of recent title mods are simple reskins, new units, and stat changes (which are superficial) - Modders don't even have the ability or tools to change the campaign map in recent titles. Modders work with what they have and they make the best of what they are able. While there are plenty of great mod and talented modders for recent titles, the changes they can make are only skin-deep. So the old saying "Mods will fix it" isn't even remotely as true as it used to be. We can only fix what we're allowed, which in context is superficial compared to the title as a whole.
    Again, I can't agree. Plenty of great mods for all the modern Total Wars have come out, and many of them have drastically impacted the way I play the games. Mods like DEI, Shieldwall, and even SFO have made playing their respective titles a whole different experience from the base game. Just because it's not to the same mind-boggling extent as the mods of Med 2 (which has let people make what I would consider to be entirely new titles) does not mean that what can be done here is only superficial.
    Last edited by zoner16; March 06, 2019 at 12:43 AM.
    My Three Kingdoms Military History Blog / Military Map Project - https://zirroxas.tumblr.com/
    Ask me a question!

  16. #956
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,241

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    A bit extreme perhaps, but not far off the mark either. There is a reason why the vast majority of recent title mods are simple reskins, new units, and stat changes (which are superficial) - Modders don't even have the ability or tools to change the campaign map in recent titles. Modders work with what they have and they make the best of what they are able. While there are plenty of great mod and talented modders for recent titles, the changes they can make are only skin-deep. So the old saying "Mods will fix it" isn't even remotely as true as it used to be. We can only fix what we're allowed, which in context is superficial compared to the title as a whole.
    Sorry sir, but that statement is total . You are right in one thing, we cannot mod campaign map. But if you call DeI,AI, SFO reskins, then you are pretty bashing them into ground. There si plenty of WH2 mods heavily scripted which are adding new features or allowing customization. I did already such list for another discussion so don´t make me going to look for it once more.

    The reason why majority of mods are just textures or small changes is because not everybody is willing invest into deeper learning of modding.

  17. #957
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,204

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    I get that.

    For me, I've never been expecting a game that's historically accurate to the degree that I'd make it. CA's priorities aren't the same as mine, since their goal is to sell as many copies as possible to an audience who will mostly only have knowledge of the setting through the Romance if they have any at all. Then there's the fact that CA aren't historians and are definitely novices in regards to this era (purple dragon Zilong anyone?). While there are plenty of things that I think could have been done better and some things that I think are outright mistakes, none of them feel like apathy or laziness, but just a combination of misaligned priorities and gaps in knowledge. There are certainly areas which disappoint me more than others (the anemic bureaucracy system is my chief gripe), but in general I wouldn't say that I feel that the period is fundamentally misrepresented on the whole, just certain aspects of it.

    And it's not like there aren't proper minor details. There are areas where they are clearly trying, and several of them have made me happy as well. I suppose that makes the areas where they failed all the more annoying for what they could have been, but again, none of this is new territory for the series. The details being off hasn't prevented these titles from not being fun, engaging, or even immersive in the past, so long as the gameplay draws the player in properly, and the livestream gameplay has been looking more promising as time goes on. If people's fun with the game translates into them caring more about the history, I can deal with the misunderstandings in post, and so long as I'm having fun, I can't be too upset.

    Again, I can't agree. Plenty of great mods for all the modern Total Wars have come out, and many of them have drastically impacted the way I play the games. Mods like DEI, Shieldwall, and even SFO have made playing their respective titles a whole different experience from the base game. Just because it's not to the same mind-boggling extent as the mods of Med 2 (which has let people make what I would consider to be entirely new titles) does not mean that what can be done here is only superficial.
    My last sentence, "We can only fix what we're allowed, which in context is superficial compared to the title as a whole," is not a false statement. I'm sure all of those mods, and their respective modders, would have loved to have made much deeper alterations than they were able. I'd even bet money they would have even liked to make a mod on an entirely different setting. A proper LoTR mod with a proper Middle Earth map for Warhammer? Game of Thrones for Attila? I'm not blaming the modders or talking down on their work, I'm obviously pointing the finger at CA for the limited modding capabilities imposed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    Sorry sir, but that statement is total . You are right in one thing, we cannot mod campaign map. But if you call DeI,AI, SFO reskins, then you are pretty bashing them into ground. There si plenty of WH2 mods heavily scripted which are adding new features or allowing customization. I did already such list for another discussion so don´t make me going to look for it once more.

    The reason why majority of mods are just textures or small changes is because not everybody is willing invest into deeper learning of modding.
    Read my response to zoner. Now reread what you wrote. I didn't call those mods reskins or was bashing their modders; I apologize if that's how you took my previous statement, as it was not the message I was trying to convey.

    And I would disagree with your last statement - the vast majority of mods for titles up to Shogun 2 were not simple reskins, new units, and stat changes, they were overhauls. Why the change? We both know why and it is not because people stopped wanting to learn how to mod newer titles.
    Last edited by Seether; March 06, 2019 at 05:38 AM.
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  18. #958

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    My last sentence, "We can only fix what we're allowed, which in context is superficial compared to the title as a whole," is not a false statement. I'm sure all of those mods, and their respective modders, would have loved to have made much deeper alterations than they were able. I'd even bet money they would have even liked to make a mod on an entirely different setting. A proper LoTR mod with a proper Middle Earth map for Warhammer? Game of Thrones for Attila? I'm not blaming the modders or talking down on their work, I'm obviously pointing the finger at CA for the limited modding capabilities imposed.
    Fair, but that wasn't what the conversation about modding was about. It was about trying to fix specific problems that people had with the game as well as adding more historical detail and depth. Despite it being harder to do and not quite to the same extent, it's demonstrably true that this is still possible to mod with modern Total War.
    My Three Kingdoms Military History Blog / Military Map Project - https://zirroxas.tumblr.com/
    Ask me a question!

  19. #959
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,204

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    True, certain aspects are possible to mod. However we don’t know if specific issues or features in the game can even be touched by mods. So it isn’t demonstrably true (as we don’t know yet) and so I still stick with my previous statement that “Mods will fix it” is not as true as it used to be. We simply don’t know what can be fixed/altered/added to TK, and CA hasn’t been the most supportive of the modding community over the past several years.
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  20. #960
    The Wandering Storyteller's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I wash my hands of this weirdness!
    Posts
    4,460

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Ca has been worse at modding suppprt. Their refusal to release TED for RII to get rid of the copy paste settlements is mind boggling. And this has been happening since Empire.





















































Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •